In 1965, Melzack and Wall described the physiologic mechanisms by which stimulation of large diameter non-pain sensory nerves could reduce the amount of unpleasant activity carried by pain nerves. This landmark observation published in Science was termed the “gate control theory” and offered a model to describe the interactions between various types of the sensory pathways in the peripheral and central nervous systems. The model described how non-painful sensory input such as mild electrical stimulation could reduce or gate the amount of nociceptive (painful) input that reached the central nervous system.
The gate-control theory stimulated research that lead to the creation of new medical devices such as transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulators (TENS). In brief, TENS works by electrically “blocking” pain impulses carried by peripheral nerves. Receptors to cold and heat are located just below the surface of the skin. Heat receptors are activated through a temperature range of about 36° C. to 45° C. and cold receptors by a temperature range about 1-20° C. below the normal skin temperature of 34° C. (Van Hees and Gybels, 1981). The stimuli are transmitted centrally by thin poly-modal C nerve fibers. Activation of heat receptors are also affected by the rate of rise of the heat stimuli (Yarnitsky et al., 1992). Above 45° C. warm receptor discharge decreases and nociceptive response increases producing the sensations of pain and burning (Torebjork et al., 1984).
Activation of poly-modal thermal receptors causes significant pain relief in controlled experimental conditions. Kakigi and Watanabe (1996) demonstrated that warming and cooling of the skin in Human volunteers could significantly reduce the amount of reported pain and somatosensory evoked potential activity induced by the noxious stimulation of a CO2 laser. The authors offered that the effects seen could be from a central inhibitory effect produced by the thermal stimulation. Similar inhibition of pain from thermal simulation was reported in a different Human experimental pain model (Ward et al., 1996). The study authors (Kakigi and Watanabe 1996 and Ward et al., 1996) proposed that the thermal analgesia was in part from a central inhibitory effect (gating) from stimulation of small thin C nerve fibers. This contrasts with TENS which produces at least part of its analgesia through gating brought on by activation of large diameter afferent nerve fibers.
A number of recent clinical studies strongly support the use of heat as an analgesic in patients who suffer from chronic pain and offer potential mechanisms by which heat produces analgesia. Abeln et al. (2000) in a randomized controlled single-blinded study examined the effect of low level topical heat in 76 subjects who suffered from low back pain. Heat treatment was statistically more effective in relieving pain and improving the quality of sleep than that produced by placebo.
Weingand et al. (2001) examined the effects in a randomized, single blinded, controlled trial of low level topical heat in a group of over 200 subjects who suffered from low back pain and compared heat to placebo heat, an oral analgesic placebo, and ibuprofen 1200 mg/day. The authors found heat treatment more effective than placebo and superior to ibuprofen treatment in relieving pain and increasing physical function as assessed by physical examination and the Roland Morris disability scale.
A separate group (Nadler at al, 2002) found similar results in a prospective single blinded randomized controlled trial of 371 subjects who suffered from acute low back pain. The authors found that cutaneous heat treatment was more effective than oral ibuprofen 1200 mg/day, acetaminophen 4000 mg/day or oral and heat placebos in producing pain relief and improving physical function. The authors offered several hypotheses for the mechanism(s) of action which includes increased muscle relaxation, connective tissue elasticity, blood flow, and tissue healing potential provided through the low-level topical heat. Similar beneficial effects of topical heat were show in patients who suffered from dysmenorrhea (Akin et al., 2001), and temporomandibular joint pain TMJ (Nelson et al., 1988).
A recent study used power Doppler ultrasound to evaluate the effects of topical heat on muscle blood flow in Humans (Erasala et al., 2001). Subjects underwent 30 minutes of heating over their trapezius muscle and changes in blood flow were examined at 18 different locations over the muscle. Vascularity increased 27% (p=0.25), 77% (p=0.03) and 104% (p=0.01) with 39, 40 or 42° C. temperature of the heating pad. Importantly increases in blood flow extended approximately 3 cm deep into the muscle. The authors concluded that the increased blood flow likely contributed to the analgesic and muscle relaxation properties of the topical heat. Similar increases in deep vascular blood flow were noted using magnetic resonance thermometry in subjects treated with mild topical heat by two separate groups (Mulkern et al., 1999, and Reid et al., 1999).
TENS, Heat, and Pain Relief Methods
Recent studies demonstrating the analgesic effectiveness of heat and provided potential mechanisms of action. The mechanisms include a reduction of pain through a central nervous system interaction mediated via thin c-fibers (Kakigi and Watanabe, 1996, Ward et al., 1996), enhancement of superficial and deeper level blood flow (Erasala et al., 2001, Mulkern et al., 1999, Reid et al., 1999), or local effects on the muscle and connective tissue (Nadler et al., 2002, Akin et al. 2001). TENS is thought to act through inhibition of nociception by increasing endogenous opioids or by a neural inhibitory interaction of nociception via large diameter fibers. TENS is widely used and endorsed by the pain management guidelines of both the AHCPR and American Geriatric Society (Gloth 2001). However a significant number of patients fail to achieve adequate relief with TENS or fail within six months of starting treatment (Fishbain et al., 1996).
Previous Work
Many devices beginning with the earliest of the resistive wire heating pads are well known to accomplish the individual function of heating. A more complex therapeutic device for providing heating or cooling of the skin and underlying body tissue is disclosed in Deutsch (U.S. Pat. No. 5,097,828). This device includes a handle and a thermally conductive head that utilizes Peltier effect devices for heating or cooling a contact plate. The contact plate may also be connected to a high-voltage source for electrical stimulation.
Kanare et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,336,255), describes an electrical stimulation and heating or cooling pack that includes a pouch and straps for positioning and holding the pouch against a body part. Flexible conductive patches attached to the pouch are connectable to a remote pulse generator. An electrically conductive adhesive gel pad is also provided for coupling the conductive patch to the body part.
Heath (U.S. Pat. No. 1,377,158), describes an electrical resistance unit which can adapt to many uses, including heating devices. James (U.S. Pat. No. 5,601,618) is a device for providing combination electrical stimulation and the simultaneous heating of the body tissue. The device is a single unit and is portable, relying upon low current dry battery power for heating.
In the drawings, identical reference numbers identify similar elements or acts. The sizes and relative positions of elements in the drawings are not necessarily drawn to scale, and some of these elements are arbitrarily enlarged to improve drawing legibility. Further, the particular shapes of the elements as drawn are not intended to convey any information regarding the actual shape of the particular elements, and have been solely selected for ease of recognition in the drawings.